DMT and Religion, The inaccuracies in reported effects due to religious thought.

[spacejunk]

^ agreed, and well put.

 

[SpinOutOfControl]

Just because most of my trips are not spiritual or religious does not mean I have a limited world view or that I just don't get it.

 

[spacejunk]

who said anything about 'spiritual or religious' experiences? psychedelic experience need not focus on anything 'otherworldly' to be illuminating or valuable.

 

[psychomimetic]

Sorry, I thought he was saying that even during the experience he knew he was 'on a drug'. I had in mind a sensory overload - aimed at what, in particular, I'm not sure now... but to each there own. I'm not sure why I was so insistent.


No, I haven't - but I should. I'm not averse to sleep-deprivation through stimulant-use to act as an 'amplifier' before taking any psychedelic. To me, it is a very real 'spirituality' (not-implying 'spirits'... despite earlier claims...) - not as an arbitrary imposition of significance onto a drug experience, but a seen/known/experienced significance. Encountering repeatedly-observable phenomena and paradigms which are shared by other people over millenia can't be dismissed based upon the means of getting-there. The 'reality' (or hallucinated-reality) is observable in remarkable clarity, and interact-able in a repeatable fashion - although certainly the person is 'psychotic' to an outsider; it's only problematic as regards the time-scale of 'recovery'; if that makes sense. I don't know if this makes any sense at all to people who use drugs in a less irresponsible fashion.

Ayahuasca, in my opinion, blows smoked DMT out of the water in almost every respect. By far the most amazing, spiritual, mentally interesting and healing experience I've ever had. Ayahuasca makes me feel reborn afterwards. You'd definitely dig it, from what I can tell.

But the rationalization as 'psychosis' - using philosophies from people who never knew, or imagined, the state of mind seems inadequate - and entirely dismissive of the content of the experience itself - whether 'psychosis' or 'trip' - it's still a change in brain chemistry nonetheless. To question an observed 'reality' by questioning its reality avoids confronting the fact that it is repeatedly observable, and observably real (or 'unreal', if preferred) regardless; and exists with common themes described-repeatedly throughout history... I'll stop there since attempted rationalizations of hallucinated realities may be construed as 'psychotic' by 'psychotomimetic' users, paradoxically, and using words to describe the 'visions' only leads to using names with religious overtones, and immediately confuses the intent of the person trying to express the non-religious 'vision' - viewed in a surrounding with 'spiritual' overtones all the same, if that makes sense!

I think the fact that many themes are repeated over and over in trips can be explained by common shared cultural and perhaps mental archetypes, as well as existing brain structures and their manipulation. I've seen beings on DMT that are completely beyond words to describe, but sometimes out of convenience I refer to them as elf-lizard bionic energy beings, or something along those lines. But I only choose those words because of the archetypes behind them, I would never call them elves or gnomes if Terence McKenna hadn't. There was a recent thread about snakes and ayahuasca where people were talking bout why certain hallucinations seem to happen regularly to different people, it was fairly interesting for a while. I think we share a lot of cultural figures- serpents, elves, religious themes, etc. and I think the psychedelic mind state is strongly influenced by the reality experienced before taking on the altered state.

I agree completely about people who haven't experienced altered states trying to explain them- it's impossible. I've experienced a very wide array of altered states, and I cannot truly explain them myself, except perhaps through chemical explanations. But I can't explain the subjective experience of psychedelics or psychosis (which I've never had without stimulants and/or deliriants) at all.

My username is in jest by the way, and a reference to my heavy deliriant use of the past. And it's misspelled/shortened- psychomimetic instead of psychotomimetic.

I don't view psychedelics as mimicking psychosis or bringing on psychotic states, except perhaps in predisposed individuals or in certain...conditions.

I don't think we all enter the same place while tripping, that is, I don't think there is a specific "reality" associated with DMT, even a shared subjective reality, that different people can repeatedly enter. The experiences people have are often similar, but I think that is due to the drug's effects being the same (the objective neurological effects), and due to humans sharing a sober reality, cultural similarities, and the power of suggestion. I think trips can allow us to revisit subjective places over and over due to the power of the mind.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the nihilist in me says that the subjective reality created by psychedelics is valid. And I think subjective reality is an important part of existence. But the scientist in me knows that reality does exist and is bigger than humans, bigger than we may ever be able to comprehend.

I am confident that objective reality exists, I think tripping provides an amazing and intriguing (and enigmatic) way of leaving your perception of that reality behind, but the world keeps on turning. That's why I love astronomy and cosmology, and I find that more recently my trips have been less homeo-centric than they once were. I don't think of religious significance or literal alternate planes anymore, I think of the vastness of the universe, the infinite beauty and complexity of existence that can be found by looking outwards into the sky or inwards into the mind or any other thing.

I think rationalizing the psychedelic experience as some sort of psychosis is not right. I think that it does provide a valid lens through which to examine oneself and the world (particularly things like culture). But I don't think it provides a true or alternate reality. Which, in a way, is more impressive than it being some spiritual drug (ancestor's spirits and whatnot). I think it's a potent and beautiful example of the enormous capacities of consciousness, the endless potential and depth of the human mind. And that answer is more logical and satisfies me more than any gnomes or spirit universe ever could.

From a socially-aware perspective, which I sometimes forget... I see that you're absolutely right in all of your comments So thanks for pointing out my megalomania! I'll claim 'temporary-psychosis' if I may... and not bore anyone with bizarre 'interpretations'... Haha.
Stating 'beliefs' as 'known-fact' - as I may have done in the past - is also not very helpful in reaching any understanding of 'truth', but it may highlight the interchangeable-nature of arbitrary beliefs of any kind... except to a 'psychotic' person may actually forget that they don't believe in it anyway - which can lead to severe internal crises! In fact it's best not to come onto the internet at all.
I'll add that McKenna's book True Hallucinations is a very interesting read for those who like to read between the lines of rambling words. But this concept in itself may be a form of 'psychotic' reaction.

Love and light and DMT Unoit.
I was doing quite well until the end - but then I had a relapse!

I've always liked McKenna, although I disagree with the vast majority of his opinions. True Hallucinations is my favorite of his books, the story really explains a lot about how he got to be such a weird guy. Much better than his hardcore pseudoscience like Food of the Gods.

You might enjoy Breaking Open the Head by Daniel Pinchbeck. He starts out a pretty normal journalist heading to Africa to participate in an Iboga ceremony, by the end of it he's doing 2c-B and DMT at Burning Man and he thinks witches from the DMT plane are coming through to this reality to kill him (like he always thinks this, not just while high). It's a trip to read.

 

[Ismene]

Psychedelics grant an enormous amount of power to the mind, but if you use that power in sloppy ways you are not going to see the full potential.

This sounds like the old puritan work ethic "Work hard when you take drugs or God will frown on you". Bullshit. You take psychedelics however you want - if you get value from them then they're valuable. You don't have to sweep the ashram for 60 years in conjunction with taking psychedelics to get everything you need from them.

 

[Thorns Have Roses]

I didn't just throw in to my post the part you quoted out of sheer randomness. The point was to explain that we are never free from intoxication by so-called exogenous substances, because such substances are unconsumed and unexcreted, on an ultimate level. Our experience is intoxication, it's just not always apparent to the individual (because when you are constantly intoxicated on the same molecules i.e. the same foods eaten every day, you believe you are at baseline). The ramifications of which mean that there is no definable "sober" state (indeed, 'state' is a bad word to use to describe a system in continuous flux), and that any notion of such a state being superior in regards to perceptual validity is wrong.

This is what we call "losing the plot." You should consider Philip K. Dick's statement, "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." Lest you end up in a sanitarium, after being barricaded in your house hiding from the CIA during a meth binge, telling your would be helpers there is no such thing as being on drugs and your view of reality is equally valid with theirs.

Have you read Carl Jung's Seven Sermons to the Dead? He gets at my point in there.

 

[MyExcuse]

In response to ME:I didn't miss the point, I addressed it on the nose. That zeitgeist perspective you refer to is what I am attempting to deconstruct, by showing that - no matter how useful it may be to support an already established view - it is an erroneous way of seeing it.

So evolutionary cognitive presets are erroneous to you but not to natural selection or society. Got it. Crazy has always existed, we just usually killed those who were, or secluded them in mountain monasteries to divine "truths" from the ether (see: Delphic Oracles, monks, gurus, etc.). How about the notable generation of cult leaders "directed" by altered states of conscious thinking? Shoko Asahara (Aum Shinrikyo), Jim Jones (Jonestown), Charles Manson, Adolph Hitler, Timothy Leary, I could go on. Tell me more about how these individual's conscious state is equally valid with mine.

In response to Lazyscience:You make this assertion without giving any credible explanation as to why. The problem is, as I outlined above, your assertion is made in the foundations of the presupposition (in other words, already taken as a 'given') that everyday "sobriety" is the one and only benchmark by which to judge "true" experience, and thus you toss out other mindstates as invalid in comparison. Your mind has already been made up before you've asked yourself the question. This is called circular logic.

How is "Sobriety" not the one and only benchmark to judge "true" experience with? If experience is to be taken to literally mean the sensory input from our 5 senses, the unadulterated, "neurotypical" state of sobriety is the ONLY way to experience "true" reality. From what I can see in literature, the only uses hallucinogens have had in society have been related to the religious and ecstatic mental therapies relied upon before modern medicine. There is circular reasoning from a philosophical standpoint (Viruses cause illness, vaccines are viruses, vaccines cure viruses but also cause a reaction in the body similar to viruses, Vaccines cause illness), and then there is science.

In response to Never knows best:Fine, you can reject the equivalency (as you term it) between what is known as "intoxicated" and what is known as "sober" all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that there is no difference in the validity.

And then you just threw science into the gutter and I lose all respect for any rational debate with you. What? How do you even begin to formulate such a thought as "inebriated awareness is just as valid as sobriety". Please tell that to the parents of anyone killed by a drunk driver. If you are going to say some inebriated states are more valid than others, you clearly need to define (on a rational, biologically relevant level) what the differences are.

While I may not personally agree with all of the DSM, it provides a very well thought out and defined guideline on what states of consciousness are not acceptable. Until I can see something that does the same for the so-called "useful altered states" of consciousness, they're all getting lumped together into that "drugged up" or bat shit crazy category. Most rational individuals would agree with the sentiment.

 

[lastest]

Ritualized sacrifice is the most noble end imaginable for me...

The thought of you being ritually sacrificed is quite appealing to me too, so I guess we do agree on something.

 

[x-sun-x-moon-x]

The thought of you being ritually sacrificed is quite appealing to me too, so I guess we do agree on something.

I'm the yin to your yang, Sir.
Everything in balance. Let's dance...

I've always liked McKenna, although I disagree with the vast majority of his opinions. True Hallucinations is my favorite of his books, the story really explains a lot about how he got to be such a weird guy.

I don't think he held any opinions at all. It just seemed that way when he used language.

 

[Survived Abortion]

I didn't miss the point, I addressed it on the nose. That zeitgeist perspective you refer to is what I am attempting to deconstruct, by showing that - no matter how useful it may be to support an already established view - it is an erroneous way of seeing it.

So evolutionary cognitive presets are erroneous to you but not to natural selection or society. Got it. Crazy has always existed, we just usually killed those who were, or secluded them in mountain monasteries to divine "truths" from the ether (see: Delphic Oracles, monks, gurus, etc.).

What on Earth has the evolutionary usefulness of "survival mode" consciousness in reproductive biological organisms got to do with the "truthfulness" - or lack thereof - of particular states of perception?

If I am interpreting your implications correctly, you are implying that just because animal life has survived, reproduced, and evolved for millenia within the survival, beta brain wave mode of consciousness, then that mode of consciousness must be the only correct way of perceiving all that exists. You are wrong, but I really havn't got the time or inclination to repeat myself and explain why you are wrong.

How about the notable generation of cult leaders "directed" by altered states of conscious thinking? Shoko Asahara (Aum Shinrikyo), Jim Jones (Jonestown), Charles Manson, Adolph Hitler, Timothy Leary, I could go on. Tell me more about how these individual's conscious state is equally valid with mine.

And isn't it funny how, in discussions about alternative modes of perception, someone always gets desperate enough to mention Adolf Hitler and Charles Manson.

How do you even begin to formulate such a thought as "inebriated awareness is just as valid as sobriety". Please tell that to the parents of anyone killed by a drunk driver.

Come on, let's not resort to emotional pleas. So far in this thread, I have seen mention of rapists, drunk drivers, Adolf Hitler, and Charles Manson coming from the rationalist-materialist camp, in the aggressive and desperate bid to bolster their arguements with the emotional inertia of negative connotations. It's a pretty sad thing.

And then you just threw science into the gutter and I lose all respect for any rational debate with you.

Fine. Don't debate with me then, see if I really care about it.

 

[lastest]

someone always gets desperate enough to mention Adolf Hitler...

Godwin's law in action, hehe!

 

[Survived Abortion]

This is what we call "losing the plot." You should consider Philip K. Dick's statement, "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." Lest you end up in a sanitarium, after being barricaded in your house hiding from the CIA during a meth binge, telling your would be helpers there is no such thing as being on drugs and your view of reality is equally valid with theirs.

Have you read Carl Jung's Seven Sermons to the Dead? He gets at my point in there.

I've already PM'd you about this post, but screw it - I see no reason why I shouldn't defend myself here either.

I guess by "plot", the implication is wandering away from the straight and narrow. "You've lost the plot" just means "you don't subscribe to the cultural story that I want you to conform to". Sorry if I don't fit your mold, bro, it's just that I think the rigid ideologies inherent within it are a load of bollocks.

I've tried to present my ideas in as rational a way as possible within the framework of such a dissicult to approach subject. I'm not going off on flights of fantasty, I'm conveying - through use of my own language - ways of looking at reality, such as interbeing, which are already regarded as totally normal by over a billion people (buddhists). Yet there is always someone in the crowd who will shout "insane" or "crackpot" just because they don't get it. Just because you can't grasp what I'm saying, doesn't make it insane. If you'd have told a Roman soldier that one day it would be possible to talk with your voice instantly to another person on the other side of the ocean by speaking in to a brightly lit hand-held device that makes beeping noises, he would probably have called you insane. It just means that he couldn't understand what the hell you were talking about.

Ritualized sacrifice is the most noble end imaginable for me...

I suppose this is because the whole pseudo-spritual movement (added to your own psychedelic experiences) has instilled you with a sense of grandiose reverence for ancient cultures, some of which degenerated in their beliefs and practices over time to the level of barbarity. I guess it feels really macho and makes you feel like a worthwhile human being to believe such things. It's posts like these which give a bad rep to those of us who are trying to illuminate the real facts. And it also concerns me that such horrendous ideas will infect other people, as they clearly do.

 

[SpinOutOfControl]

And then you just threw science into the gutter and I lose all respect for any rational debate with you. What? How do you even begin to formulate such a thought as "inebriated awareness is just as valid as sobriety". Please tell that to the parents of anyone killed by a drunk driver. If you are going to say some inebriated states are more valid than others, you clearly need to define (on a rational, biologically relevant level) what the differences are.

While I may not personally agree with all of the DSM, it provides a very well thought out and defined guideline on what states of consciousness are not acceptable. Until I can see something that does the same for the so-called "useful altered states" of consciousness, they're all getting lumped together into that "drugged up" or bat shit crazy category. Most rational individuals would agree with the sentiment.

This makes a lot of sense to me.

I don't think there is any way you can trust your perception and judgement in an altered mind over your sober mind, or say that your sober mind is not more accurate than tripping. By no means is sober mind a perfect interpretation of the world but shit it's gotta be preferable on a day to day basis.

How is hallucinating just as valid as having an un-altered view? How can hallucinations be showing you anything relevant to reality and real world situations? Or do you not think you are hallucinating when high on DMT?

If altered states of consciousness are just as valid, useful, and correct why aren't we all on breakthrough doses of DMT all day long? You can't even walk or remember your name like that.

Id like to hear just one situation or event which being high on any mind altering hallucinogenic drug is going to be more beneficial and valid than sober.

 

[spacejunk]

This makes a lot of sense to me.

I don't think there is any way you can trust your perception and judgement in an altered mind over your sober mind, or say that your sober mind is not more accurate than tripping. By no means is sober mind a perfect interpretation of the world but shit it's gotta be preferable on a day to day basis.

How is hallucinating just as valid as having an un-altered view? How can hallucinations be showing you anything relevant to reality and real world situations? Or do you not think you are hallucinating when high on DMT?

If altered states of consciousness are just as valid, useful, and correct why aren't we all on breakthrough doses of DMT all day long? You can't even walk or remember your name like that.

Id like to hear just one situation or event which being high on any mind altering hallucinogenic drug is going to be more beneficial and valid than sober.

what would be the point of trying to explain such a thing to you? if you deny it or renounce it as a delusion, isn't it better that we keep what is special to ourselves?
your values seem opposed to anything that could be gained from psychedelic experience. that's fine!
we're not salesmen. at least i'm not.
psychedelics ain't for everyone. my consciousness is my business, and i sure as hell aren't trying to convert anyone.

 

[SpinOutOfControl]

your values seem opposed to anything that could be gained from psychedelic experience.

How about pleasure and fun. Is there anything wrong with that? Im convinced it is the only reason anyone actually does any of these things.

 

[spacejunk]

*[edited to make sense in regard to other's deleted posts]


i might take your position seriously if you weren't talking about mushroom introspection in other threads:

LSD doesn't really give me a lot of introspection anymore either. I never used it to quite the extent you have, but at times it would seem close.

I hadn't had any in a few months and recently just ate 3 or 4 drops of liquid and licked the dropper, I tripped balls. It was still mostly visual and barley any introspection. Mushrooms are full of introspection though but I have way less experiences with them.

if you only use psychedelic drugs for hedonistic kicks, i'm not going to criticise you.
but if you are going to deny the value of other people's experiences and throw around terms like "delusion" and "psychosis", then i'm going to take issue with what you're saying.
you clearly understand what the value of psychedelic thought is - whether you're truly conflicted on this matter or just trolling isn't really for me to determine.

do what you want man, but all this bluster comparing psychedelic consciousness exploration with drink-driving (!) doesn't really help in mounting a coherent argument.

 

[Juremo]

How is hallucinating just as valid as having an un-altered view?

No, hallucinations do not give you a valid view of reality.
But perception of reality does not give you a valid view of hyperspace
(or however you want to call the perceptive universe entered on DMT breaktroughs).

Your current reality consists of your perception, which can be subdivided into
1. sensory input
2. perception of time/continuity
3. visceral perception (emotion, feelings)
4. reflective awareness of self (as separate from the rest of the perceptive universe)

Everything that is perceived by you is real and valid. How could it be invalid, it's there. It might be that it's invalid in regard to a certain model of reality you have constructed out of the completeness of your perception.
You can then discredit it as invalid, psychotic or as a hallucination. In the moment you actually experience it however, it's real. If your reflective awareness of self is dissolved you have no longer the possibility to doubt this.

My point is that you should try to judge everything according to your current perception. It's not exactly helpful to think you have gone batshit crazy on the height of a DMT trip. I also don't think it's helpful to try to explain everything afterwards, like "ah my visual cortex was certainly overstimulated" or "i contacted some friggin' aliens in their spaceship".
The reason you forget so much from a hyperspace trip is that the majority of what you experience does not fit the narrow categories of your baseline reality. What you are able to remember is only what can be semantically encoded as (rather ridiculous) concepts like "angels" and "elves".

And how exactly is the moral high ground hyperbole about "babies being killed by inebriated drivers, oh the humanity!" useful in this context?

 

[Ismene]

How is hallucinating just as valid as having an un-altered view? How can hallucinations be showing you anything relevant to reality and real world situations? Or do you not think you are hallucinating when high on DMT?

I don't think they are "hallucinations" in that sense spin, I think hallucinations mean you are seeing something that isn't there which I don't get when I take psychedelics. I see enhanced colours and things that are already there but I tend to see the beauty in them more easily.

Your perception of reality on psychedelics is just slightly different to "normal". Does that make it any less valid?

Id like to hear just one situation or event which being high on any mind altering hallucinogenic drug is going to be more beneficial and valid than sober.

Coping with grief and emotional pain? Seeing beauty in nature that you couldn't hope to see while sober? Hearing music in a way you've never heard it before? Enjoying the euphoria of deep soul-enriching laughter?

 

[psychomimetic]

^All good points. I think that there is undoubtedly an objective reality (love the Philip K Dick quote earlier), but at the same time I think that altered perceptions can increase our understanding of self and universe, and thus such states are valid. To say that nothing valuable can be gained from psychedelics is absurd, I have repeatedly bettered myself, conquered depression, altered my moral compass and changed my general view of life and the world, all because of psychedelics. They have without a doubt granted me a better understanding of myself and the world I live in.

That's not to say I think the reality made by the psychedelic state is literally "real", but I do think it is a temporarily valid way of viewing things, and much can be provided. It's like saying that people enter a different mind state while in deep meditation or trance, and through that state they can discover things kept invisible to the "normal" realms of perception. It doesn't mean reality is literally shifting, but our subjective reality is dictated by perception, and that is shifting radically.

I think psychedelics can grant many things, the problems come when people start to view the psychedelic state as being more real than objective reality, when people start ignoring principles of the real world to believe in psychedelics. There is certainly a real world, but when high you may be able to examine it through a different lens, if that makes sense.

 

[MyExcuse]

A few final points I feel need to be brought up:
Many in this thread have expressed the logical fallacy of cognitive dualism. That is, that the brain is separate from the mind. That hallucinations emanate from some outside force or allow the person experiencing them to view "true" reality, as if it were something different than altered "normal" reality. In doing this, you deny science and while being in the right as far as comparable thinking in indigenous societies, you are not accepting the fact based evidence of what it is your are experiencing.

Many forget that we are drug users first and foremost. Our positions are biased and I doubt anyone can make the claim that an absence of drug use in anyone's life will leave them disadvantaged. A logical and rational non-drug using person will claim that all of our efforts (ie, using psychedelics for personal growth) are pointless, if not completely detrimental to our mental well being.

I do feel some people may benefit from hallucinogens when enduring emotional pain or in a visionary or artistic manner. I cannot accept that this is any better than therapies provided by a psychologist or religious leader. Anything that hallucinogens may contribute to a long-term beneficial growth of ones consciousness, may be achieved through non-drug-utilizing methods. It's a slippery slope when using a drug to "better" oneself.

I can find ways to use meth to better myself too! In fact, dare I say, this may be a more practical drug in modern society (See: Ya ba) than hallucinogens to facilitate personal growth.


Finally:
There is a very religious feeling to those who subscribe to the spiritual/dualist thinking pattern within the psychedelic community. That is, many of the logical fallacies and incoherent adherence to "scripture" and "revelation" seen in religious organizations are seen quite readily in select users of hallucinogenic substances.

Hallucinogens are not some benign wonder drug. I think that's where I'll leave this, I hope everyone has had their positions reinforced, even if they're ridiculous.